Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional Who defines "appropriate" in FAPE?

I apologize if this is a stupid question but who defines what is an "appropriate" education for a 2e kid? Is it the school? Is it the IEP? Is it the doctor? Is a kid in public school 5th grade who could do much higher grade work getting an "appropriate" education?

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Well, the snarky answer is that appropriate is whatever the school tells you they'll be providing.

On a more serious note, however, it does seem as though it is often the case that the burden of proof that it is NOT appropriate rests with parents who believe it's intolerably "inappropriate."

Appropriate, sadly, is a moving target. That isn't all bad news-- because it does mean that the right team, working together, can accomplish amazingly good-fitting schooling options for qualified children.

It also means that the opposite of that is nightmarish for parents to try to fight against, when for example the rest of the IEP team is stacked with yes-men/-women who nod at the ringleader (your nemesis) and look at you as though you're crazy for being "that parent" when the rest of them all see NOOOOOO problems.

Depends on the state. Those with a gifted mandate are more likely to define it in such a way that having an instructional level that matches the child's ZPD, and accommodations that match their disability needs, is appropriate. Those without are less likely to do so. Many states and districts also define it as, as nearly approaching or meeting grade level expectations as possible, which means, sadly, that 2e kids at nominal grade level have FAPE. Unless they have a really effective ed advocate.

With an IEP, it becomes much more likely that FAPE is defined by the IEP team, and, yes, what the district has available and cares to offer. See also above statement about ed advocate.

Laurie918, what's going on that's led to your question?I'm guessing your question comes because you're advocating for something and possibly running into opposition somewhere? Is it a situation where you are trying to get appropriately challenging leveled work (possibly ahead of grade level) for a 2e child, or is it a situation where you are having difficulty getting accommodations or remediation in place where needed for a 2e child? Or both? I ask because there are slight nuances in how you can approach each re the idea of "FAPE" when advocating. With accommodations that are not being accepted by the school team, you need to focus the conversation on the disability - show how denying the accommodation doesn't allow your child to demonstrate their full knowledge or access the class' learning etc. If the issue is access to gifted programs, focus the advocacy from a discrimination slant - if your child qualifies based on whatever the program entry requirements are, the school can't keep them out - that's a legal issue that would have them out of compliance with the ADAA. You don't have to have a lawyer to argue that, just let them know you know they can't legally do it. If it's an issue of the school thinking your child shouldn't be given access to appropriate curriculum (possibly above grade level) due to needing remediation in one area etc - I'd try to show examples from your child's work that illustrate that she learns better and remediation *works better* when she is working at the appropriate instructional level for her *cognition* rather than having to work at a lower level due to the restrictions of her disability. An example of this is - my ds has a disability impacting his written expression. He clearly needed remediation for written expression - but the remediation didn't work effectively until the subject material and level of discussion was at his cognitive "grade level". Hope that makes sense!

Best wishes,

polarbear

My state recently revised it's gifted education laws, but before that "appropriate" meant "at age-grade level."

Thanks everyone for the guidance.

Polarbear, I am prepping for our IEP meeting. We have a brand new team this year (prior Spec Ed teacher retired, school psych quit, etc.). We had the additional testing done this summer (previous was done incorrectly) and new psych laid things out on the table. Our school has not been very accommodating but I am, maybe naively, hoping that things will change. Thanks for the specifics. That will be helpful in what I put together for our meeting.

Lillie Felton, right? That's the reference for 2e children that suggests that "appropriate" for such children is a matter of their individual potential, rather than grade-level expectations.


Of course, that is really only about identification of the disabling condition-- it doesn't directly address what an appropriate educational setting is for those children, once identified. There are some references which do, however-- thinking that those are in VA and maybe NC? If memory serves, I mean-- and it's possible that it doesn't. There is one that directly states that a child with a LD can't be excluded from an otherwise appropriate gifted program just for lack of accommodations to allow the student to at achieve his/her potential in that program.

I'm thinking that Pemberley probably knows of several such references. Also-- check over at Wrightslaw. They have a real treasure trove of documentation and references that would probably be quite helpful.

Good luck in your meeting. I totally understand wanting to go in loaded for bear even though you hope that you won't need to use a bit of it.

This has been our experience, but it can backfire on the team if the ringleader doesn't give the orders out soon enough, like before teachers fill out inventories which indicate their concerns. It is very disconcerting/frustrating when teachers admit to concerns X,Y, and Z (or they were the ones that brought things up in the first place!) and then totally turn on you (actually, the child) at a meeting, clearly taking orders. Their jobs and professional relationships are more important to them than any particular kid/family.

You wouldn't believe the ludicrous comments coming out of the mouths of the yes-men/women. They basically argued with everything that I tried to say. One gifted teacher claimed that a lot of gifted kids are bad at writing and it will get better on it's own. Another teacher asked me what good it would do to have a sped teacher work with her, they can do just as well on their own in the classroom. Then the sped teacher piped in and said "Yeah, that's right, if I pull her out it would be in a group of about 6 kids anyway. What good would that do?" Meanwhile the sped director was sitting there silently. I wish I had had a tape recorder.

We had very similar experiences to blackcap when advocating. If you're anticipating the same, I have two pieces of advice:

1) Keep emotion out of your responses, and just keep your statements simple, straightforward, and focused on the facts. Repeat the same statement over and over if you have to until the arguing from the staff over it stops. For example from blackcat's note re the sped teacher who said "what good would that do anyway?" reply with a statement of what the purpose would be, what remediation it would provide, and why it's required by IDEA or ADAA etc. If something denies FAPE, just keep mentioning that. If they then argue what FAPE is, the conversation has moved on and you state what FAPE is and how it's impacted here. That probably sounds too simple, and nope, it won't always work, but it was the approach that was most effective for us, when we were faced with a school team that had clearly been instructed to claim there were no issues and our ds was "fine" and everything was "fine" and no services/accommodations were needed.

2) If past experience has you really concerned re the school trying to argue things that aren't really legal etc, find out what the laws re recording meetings are in your state, and then plan to record it. In some states you'll need to get written permission of all parties, in some states you don't need permission. We never actually recorded a meeting because I didn't want to put in a layer of the school team feeling we were coming in as adversaries (although they clearly were lol). I found that just letting them know we knew what we knew and that we weren't going to fall down and let them drive right over us made it unnecessary to record (although I've since occasionally wished I had a few of the things they said recorded!).

In your situation, with essentially a new school team and new data, I'd go in with optimistic hopes - and then if things don't go well, go from there.

Best wishes,

polarbear